Document View

After all, if an esteemed talent such as [Doug Hughes] -- highly regarded artistically by the board -- can be jettisoned so easily, what would his replacement be in for? A salary comparable to Hughes' $110,000 is not that persuasive when potential candidates are wondering if they would be seen as a visionary or a hired hand. And they would surely want to know what kind of a board leader they would have to deal with -- one who is an obsessive fixture in the theater's executive offices, or one who focuses on raising funds and the theater's profile.

"[This new role for boards] is a gray area," says Ben Cameron, executive director of the Theatre Communications Group, the service organization for American nonprofit theaters. His organization has encouraged boards to become more active in their theaters. Indeed, [Barbara Pearce] became a kind of TCG celebrity, going on the road and speaking to other theater boards about Long Wharf's successful turnaround after Hughes was hired in 1997. Cameron hoped boards would be more engaged, educated and inspired by the art their theaters were creating in order to generate more community support.

Certainly, early this past season, unanimous board support for Hughes began to suffer. When "Golden Boy," the ambitious and expensive musical the theater produced last fall, flopped and Long Wharf was looking at a deficit of more than $500,000, Hughes became suddenly vulnerable. Some board members urged programming that did not alienate the theater's Gold Coast subscribers, traditionally much older, richer and more conservative. Others wanted less new work and more programming of the "classics" -- done in traditional ways.

Long Wharf Theatre announced earlier this month it is forming a committee called "Agenda 2002" that will examine, among other major issues the theater faces in the coming year, the role of its board of directors, artistic director and management staff.

Since artistic director Doug Hughes abruptly resigned June 4 over conflicts of personality, governance and management style with board chairwoman Barbara Pearce, significant questions about the institution remain, questions the new committee -- composed of board members and the senior staff of the theater -- hopes to resolve before the search begins this fall for a new artistic leader.

Though a re-examination of the board's role was in the works before Hughes' departure, the committee certainly wasn't created without the board's knowledge of the longstanding tensions between its artistic director and Pearce.

Interviews with theater professionals in Connecticut and across the country indicate that top people will not consider the vacancy at Long Wharf unless they know what kind of a world they would be entering, how much participation in the theater's future they would have and how much support they would receive.

After all, if an esteemed talent such as Hughes -- highly regarded artistically by the board -- can be jettisoned so easily, what would his replacement be in for? A salary comparable to Hughes' $110,000 is not that persuasive when potential candidates are wondering if they would be seen as a visionary or a hired hand. And they would surely want to know what kind of a board leader they would have to deal with -- one who is an obsessive fixture in the theater's executive offices, or one who focuses on raising funds and the theater's profile.

Pearce, whose non-renewable, six-year term expires in two years, remains. And though some board members might wish they could begin their search for new artistic leadership with a clean slate, there is no indication that Pearce, a major figure in local real estate concerns, will leave her position at Long Wharf.

"Barbara is a marathon runner," was all one board member would say, referring to Pearce's tenaciousness and need to win.

Meanwhile, the focus seems to be shifting from Pearce to less controversial Long Wharf figures: search committee chairwoman Claire Tow, Agenda 2002 chairman Roger LeCompte, acting artistic director Greg Leaming, managing director Michael Ross and board president Jerome Meyers.

Not Just Long Wharf

The re-examining of the role of a nonprofit arts board is not unique to Long Wharf. As regional theaters enter new generations of artistic leadership, the role of board members as stewards of the institution has expanded. In any showdown between the artists and the suits, the preferred bet is on the flannel.

"[This new role for boards] is a gray area," says Ben Cameron, executive director of the Theatre Communications Group, the service organization for American nonprofit theaters. His organization has encouraged boards to become more active in their theaters. Indeed, Pearce became a kind of TCG celebrity, going on the road and speaking to other theater boards about Long Wharf's successful turnaround after Hughes was hired in 1997. Cameron hoped boards would be more engaged, educated and inspired by the art their theaters were creating in order to generate more community support.

But be careful what you wish for.

Some saw this encouragement as a way for board members to become engaged in inappropriate ways: micromanaging staff, making artistic decisions, seeing the institution as a vehicle for personal agendas.

Though Pearce's behavior and management style were characterized by Hughes as meddlesome and inappropriate -- sources say tensions were so taut he refused to be alone in a room or car with her -- he points out that she did not attempt to dictate artistic decisions.

Other Long Wharf board members, however, were less circumspect about voicing their dissatisfaction with some of Hughes' artistic choices, especially his eagerness to present new and ambitious works.

Board members, with their own tastes and prejudices and braced by the twin tonics of arts and power, are hardly the right figures to set an artistic agenda. It's a familiar tale told around New Haven for years that members of the Long Wharf board scoffed at the idea of the International Festival of Arts & Ideas bringing in "Copenhagen" several years ago.

The production turned out to be a smash, and the play went on to Broadway where it won the Tony Award for best play. One wonders how the board would react if Hughes wanted to bring "Wit" to the theater now instead of his first golden season.

Certainly, early this past season, unanimous board support for Hughes began to suffer. When "Golden Boy," the ambitious and expensive musical the theater produced last fall, flopped and Long Wharf was looking at a deficit of more than $500,000, Hughes became suddenly vulnerable. Some board members urged programming that did not alienate the theater's Gold Coast subscribers, traditionally much older, richer and more conservative. Others wanted less new work and more programming of the "classics" -- done in traditional ways.

Hughes seemed willing to be moderate, without appearing to aim for a bland "balance" of shows. His planned fifth season was more classics-friendly with Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard," Moliere's "The Miser" and Hugh Leonard's "Da," but with engaging artistic twists of their own (including hot directors, name actors and personal connections to make the productions intriguing).

But when the conflict with Pearce came to a head, even a more tempered season wasn't enough to save Hughes.

Moving On

The theater was lucky to have Leaming, previously director of artistic programming. The board quickly promoted him to acting artistic director, and he hustled to reassemble a fall season. He replaced Hughes' shows with a lineup of fine, familiar and hardly earthshaking titles, including Shaw's "Arms and the Man," Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night" and two recent off-Broadway shows.

Financially, the theater has also righted itself this spring through extraordinary fund-raising in the last few months of the season.

Managing director Ross, who admits to considering leaving as tensions escalated this spring between Hughes and Pearce, says the theater will probably break even for the season.

Now the Agenda 2002 committee will grapple with fund-raising and endowment strategy, the artistic director search and the organizational structure.

All of this will be done as Long Wharf decides how to proceed toward its goal of building a new theater complex.

The issue will become heightened this week when commercial proposals for New Haven's downtown development are due to be submitted to the city.

Only then will it become clearer what the area around the proposed theater site might be.

If it is appealing to Long Wharf's leaders, the site might be put on a fast track for development; if the proposals don't seem to adequately support a theater, Long Wharf's search for a new home could continue for some time.

Many city government and theater personnel feel that the board wants to come to terms about its new home soon -- before it has to deal with an artistic director with strong thoughts of his or her own.

In the meantime, Agenda 2002 still has a lot of questions to answer.